How do political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism differ?

The distinction between political and legal constitutionalism centers on how a government is restrained and who serves as the primary guardian of constitutional norms.1

Political Constitutionalism
In this model, the responsibility for upholding constitutional values rests primarily with political institutions, such as the legislature and the executive. It relies on democratic processes, where elected representatives are expected to operate within established rules and respond to the will of the people. In systems like the United Kingdom, this is often associated with the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, where the legislature is the ultimate authority and courts do not have the power to invalidate statutes.12

Legal Constitutionalism
This approach emphasizes the role of an independent judiciary in enforcing constitutional limits. It typically features a written constitution and the practice of judicial review, where courts can declare legislative or executive acts null and void if they are found to be incompatible with constitutional principles. Proponents argue this protects individual rights from being sacrificed to popular prejudice or short-term political gains. Critics, however, contend that it can lead to judicial overreach, where unelected judges make decisions that should be left to the political process.213